1. The defendant is against the plaintiff (appointed party).

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 1,925,000 won; and

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed C (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) are the owners of the instant building.

On January 28, 2016, the Appointed C and the Defendant concluded a lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) between February 1, 2016 and January 31, 2018 with respect to the instant building, a deposit of KRW 3 million, monthly rent of KRW 300,000 (the additional tax shall be paid as the end of each month), and the period from February 1, 2016 to January 31, 2018, and the Defendant paid a deposit of KRW 3 million to the Plaintiffs around that time.

The Plaintiffs delivered the instant building to the Defendant on February 1, 2016.

From February 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agreed to raise the rent in KRW 350,000 per month (excluding surtax).

(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

The Defendant, on September 30, 2017, did not pay the rent from September 30, 2017, and on December 7, 2017, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground that the rent was overdue.

As such, the defendant should deliver the building of this case to the plaintiffs, since the lease contract of this case was terminated.

In addition, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs the amount equivalent to the rent of KRW 1,925,00 for five months from September 30, 2017 to January 30, 2018, and damages for delay thereof, and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 385,00 per month from January 31, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case.

On November 28, 2017, the Defendant notified the termination of the lease contract by text message while the Defendant was in arrears for two months, and the Defendant did not pay any longer. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are required to terminate the lease under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

did not have any case.

In addition, the defendant invested 24,167,00 won in the building of this case, and the defendant bears 3,000,000 won and 6,000,000 won due to the termination of the plaintiff's unilateral lease.